The problem with Ayn Rand

Confession: I haven’t read any of Ayn Rand, so my reaction is to what little I know of her thought, not to her actual work. Heidi Unruh has written a great piece, “Refuting Ayn Rand,” on the web site of Evangelicals for Social Action.

“As with any philosophy,” Unruh says, “there are glimmers of truth in her writings. Some of the values she espoused—personal responsibility, individual liberty, creative entrepreneurship—are consistent with a biblical framework, and even offer a necessary counterweight to social forces that push in the direction of tyranny.”

But glimmers of truth do not make a philosophy true.

Rand offers a extreme conservative philosophy that is “patently anti-Christian,” says conservative Christian author Charles Colson. He calls it a “phony conservatism,” even though Rand is being espoused by some conservative politicians and spokespersons. Rand’s philosophy is called “objectivism,” and Colson said, “followers of objectism are undermining the gospel.”

Rand (1905-1982) authored several novels, including Atlas Shrugged. That book’s visibility, Unruh says, has gotten a boost from a circle of elected officials who embrace her philosophy, such as California’s Rep. John Campbell, who gives interns a copy of the book. Most notably, Rep. Paul Ryan, who was influential in the summer’s budget debate—calls Ayn Rand “the reason I got involved in public service.”

So what is objectivism? Unruh says it includes the following premises:

“Pursuing personal prosperity is the highest value in life. There is no such thing as ‘the common good.’

“Each person is responsible for her own well-being and happiness. I am not my brother’s keeper. Following a purely rational ethic, no one should sacrifice himself for the sake of others.

“Charity for those in need is not an ethical obligation. Any aid given should be voluntary, private, and not at the expense of the giver’s own well-being.

“Aid should be reserved for those truly deserving of charity (i.e. not responsible for their own condition). People should reap the consequences of their choices in life.

“Government exists solely to protect personal liberty and property. Its role should be limited to police and military defense, as well as laws and infrastructure necessary for commerce (e.g., traffic control, anti-fraud laws, contract enforcement). Government overreaches when it provides a social safety net for its citizens or enacts regulations to promote their general welfare.

“Laissez-faire capitalism is the highest expression of personal liberty. Society’s progress rests on the shoulders of entrepreneurs, capitalists, and leaders of industry. Nothing must interfere with the workings of the free market—especially not government.”

If you don’t see the problem with that, then it might be best to go back and read Scripture, especially the New Testament.

Toward the end of her life, Unruh says Rand discovered that it doesn’t work so well for those who have less financial resources. “Elderly, sickened by lung cancer (the consequence of a lifetime smoking habit), she turned to Social Security and Medicaid for support in the final eight years of her life. These programs are of course part of the safety net that Rep. Ryan has called “a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.” (Ironically, Rep. Ryan himself used Social Security payments after the death of his father to pay for college.)

“Ayn Rand never publicly acknowledged flaws in her thinking. But one of her most prominent and powerful followers, Alan Greenspan, did. ‘I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,’ he admitted to a House oversight and government reform committee. He submitted to a strenuous critique of his faulty decisions, such as obstructing regulation of derivatives, that helped pave the way for the current financial crisis, and that reveal the fingerprints of Rand’s enduring influence.”

I’ve only given some highlights from Unruh’s piece. If this nation goes the way of Ayn Rand, then we are done as the nation we have been through these many years.